Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-01-11
AMERICAN FISHERIES.
Secretary Manning's Reply to the House
Resolution of ,uuuirY

DIR nave Hau the hOnOr 10 receive the
resolution Of the House OF the lith ultimo,
making inquiry in regard to the "interpre-
tation now given by the Treasury Depart
ment to the t&rif law OF lS-3, which in
one section declares that fish, fresh, lorim-
mediate consumption, shall he !rce of tax
on arrival at our SvLpUrts or lake ports, ANA
IN another section declares that foreign
caught fish, imported fresh, shall he taxed
at the rate Of fifty cents tOr each hundred
pounds, and also requesting me Ito trans
init to the House copies of all official cor
reSpondence, opinions and decisions hear
ing on the subject, together with state
ment OF the duties collected each year,
since lS65, on the several descriptions of
fish caught ON the lakes, or the Canadian
tributaries thereof, and also on several de
ScrlptlOns caught in the North Atlantic,
or on the Shores of the island thereof.
After Il brief preliminary statement the
Secretary says: The twcnty-third section
OF the tariff law OF March, lS6l, declared
that fish, fresh caught, Tor daily cOnsump-
tiUr, shall be exempt from duty. Then
began a pcrpleNity which has embarrassed
this Department up to the present day.
Some one at the port of entry must, under
that clause, decide whether or not the fish,
entered rs free hereunder, is fresh
caught, and is "iOr daily consumption. "
Did The qualification for daily cOnsump-
ton refer To the fish," or the catching
and the purpose OF the catching? Who
can correctly pass judgment on the motive
Of the fishermen, or the importer? On June
Is, 1866, this Department decided that the
phrase included all fish imported for con-
sumption, while fresh and did not include
fish imported fresh, but TO be afterwards
dried, or picked, or cured lOr future use.
DAILY COnSumptlOIE' said this depart.
ment twenty years ago, means cOnSump-
tiOn "within short time. That view
seems correct, but nevertheless the law
was mtrinSically incapable Of exact
execution, inaSmuch rs it might be diff
cult for customs officer 10 iOrcsec or fore
know the intentions or purposes referred
TO. | believe that the fish clause quoted
above from the law of March ,, 1861, and
which levied 4 tax on fish. stood till 1870,
hut the free clause was made in 1870 to
read: "Fish, fresh, for immediate con-
SUMPTION The substitution Oi "immc-
diate" for daily" did not remove the
porplcXity.
In l~11, and after the law Of $50, the
difficulties were increased, partly by Tea-
son of new cuntrivanCCs for the artificial
freezing of fish. At first it was doubted
by collectors whether or not a fish caught
in the winter, thrown on the ice and fro
zen Stiil' while laying there, and imported
in that condition could be fresh fish, y
aS If either 4 fresh fish can not be frozen,
or a frozen fish can not be fresh. 1t was
also insisted that fish caught in summer,
and frozen by an artificial method could
not be deemed fresh, even though "A fresh
Us one frozen 10y the natural GOODNESS of
winter air in northern climate p
1t could not De affirmed that the fish
thus frozen, whether naturally Orartiiiclal-
~. was either smoked, or dried, or
satcd, or picked. If freezing deprived
the fish OF freshness, il could not well bc
dutiablc aS "tOreign-Caught fish, tresh,'
What sort of fish was il? Was it old, stale,
and dccaycd fish that buyers and cOnsum-
crs sought, bought and would eat: The
contention has gone on wcll-nlgh quar-
ter of century. nor has Congress inter
ycned TO tax frozen fish by other and eX
plict words In September last the inter
prct,tion Of the law VAS referred To the
solicitor OF this Department. His opinion
does not relieve the enactment from diff
iicuIties in uniform application ut each
port such as the Constitution commands.
If a collector shall, in order to secure such
uniformity at every port. await the decIS-
ion Ol this Department after IN exhibition
Of the facts surrounding each entry, the
fish might become anything but fresh.
This fish clause Of the tariff law affords
pertinent illustration Of the need there is
OF revising our taxing legislation. The
draughtsman OF Il great many Of its sec
tions. apparent y unable to set down clear
" his purpose, and his own idea Of the
method of executing it, has thrown upon
apprai>ing or collecting officers the work
OF asccrtainiug the Intentions oi importers,
or the use to which merchandise can he, OF
may he, thereafter put, which those oii-
GERS IN" unable 10 perform IN any
reasonable time or III any salts
factory way. To appraSing and col
lecling work in practical administration
there is Il limit which our present law too
frequently ignores, aud then customs
officers are Uniustly criticised, Or con
GcmneG, for not doing such work properly.
] have dwelt upon this incident in our
tariff legislation because il makes clear,
even 10 the superficial observer, how
mans inventions. and improved methods
oi rapid communication by steam, not
only crowd down prices, and extend the
,aIahlc area of one article after another
rear by year, and month by month, but
even modify the necessary Interpretation
10 be given to claSsilicllioDS in our taxing
laws.
In Appendix Awill he found 'thc official
correspondence, opinions and decisions on
the subject of frozen fish, the record OF
which viii disclose to your honorable body
the vast amount OF labor which even one
ambiguous phrase in tariif law throw up
on Your Treasury Department and its Gus
toms officers. Our existing drag-net war
tariff law contains not one only, but hun
drcds Of such phrases, and thescarc the least
of its discrcdtablc, scandalous, and easily
rcmcdiahlc imperiections.
The phrase fisheries of the United
States. " is in the first tariff law enacted by
the first Congress which sat under the
Constitution, and the test OF American
fishing has, from that day to this, uniform
" been the nationality Of the vessel, re-
gardlcss of the place where the fish were
taken. Even the Treaty of Washington,
which admitted free Of duty into each
country fish of all kinds being the produce
of the fisheries OF either country, excepting
fish of the inland lakes, and of the rivers
falling into them, left iish caught therein
by American vessels entitled to tree entry
in our ports as formerly. Our supreme
Court declared in 1916, that, subject
to the paramount right of navigation. the
power to regulate which is in the Federal
Government each State owns the bed OF
the tide waters within its jurisdiction, and
may appropriate them to he used cNclu-
Sivelv hv its citizens rs a common for cu!-
tivating and taking fish ii navigation he
not impeded, but the treaty of lS5i gave,
nevertheless, to British subjects, i'll COM
mon with American citizens the liberty to
fish on our coasts north of the Seth parallel
OF north latitude, and the Treaty OF lSI
gave the liberty north of the 36th par
allel Those treaties having fallen, and the
the fishing rights of Massachusetts on her
.,sSt, b,,.;v,r ,aturDa1 IN her she may